/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>4480076
lol

>>4480052
Ajusted for inflation, tulips are worth more now

>>4480052
You should be thinking about how much room we have to grow.

You know the Tulip Mania never actually happened right?

*buys the dip*

>>4480052
retards like you "though"t bitcoin was dead before it reached $1. Year after year they keep repeating same mantra. The truth is, you're left behind, and you're not going to catch up.

>>4480295
Come on now anon...

>>4480309
Hurr durrrr I just repeat what people tell me on the interbutts

>>4480052
...look at adoption of tech curves, not stock or commodity curves

>>4480271
>implying there's a real use behind cryptocurrencies that you can't do it already.

I won't say that there are more than 2-3 coins that are actually worth to have.

>>4480052
>Bitcoin 2014-Today
Why not show the spike in 2010, 2011 and 2013x2?
Really makes you think.

>>4480271
Low-balling it.
Forex alone has 6+ trillion 24 hour volume.

>>4480052
but those were tulips.
this is magic internet money.

>>4480367
dude , did you live through the tech crash?? most of the companies ipo's did fuck all

>>4480330
So you're saying that every source about Dutch Tulips is false?

>>4480517
Must be an old graph. It's over 220 billion now

this is like saying the adoption of cars or cell phones is like tulip mania (which never happened by the way).

>>4480650
>(which never happened by the way)
source of this?

Although Mackay's book is a classic, his account is contested. Many modern scholars feel that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay described and argue that not enough price data are available to prove that a tulip bulb bubble actually occurred.

Goldgar, who identified many prominent buyers and sellers in the market, found fewer than half a dozen who experienced financial troubles in the time period, and even of these cases it is not clear that tulips were to blame. This is not altogether surprising. Although prices had risen, money had not changed hands between buyers and sellers. Thus profits were never realized for sellers; unless sellers had made other purchases on credit in expectation of the profits, the collapse in prices did not cause anyone to lose money.

>>4480052
Things that grow exponentially either collapse or stabilize. If you only take a few examples that collapsed, it makes it look like that's the rule. WOW!

I guess if you're retarded that would make you think.

In her 2007 scholarly analysis Tulipmania, Anne Goldgar states that the phenomenon was limited to "a fairly small group", and that most accounts from the period "are based on one or two contemporary pieces of propaganda and a prodigious amount of plagiarism".Peter Garber argues that the bubble "was no more than a meaningless winter drinking game, played by a plague-ridden population that made use of the vibrant tulip market."

ill just leave it here

>>4480534

>>4480725
oh good, they updated this.

>>4480052

This is probably the stupidest image I've seen in a while. And the tulip bubble was like a 60x at most. BTC started at sub 1-penny less than 10 years ago and now trades north of 8,000 USD. Nothing in history has rallied this hard and consistently.

ヽ(=´▽`=)ﾉ
Please search 「EA development factory of SuperJunior」
We develop and publish EA (automatic trading tool) of FOREX.
http://aqwsed123.blog.jp/

>>4481139
maybe that's because its a technology and not a stock or fuckin tulip

>>4480701
BTC did in more in 1 year than what AAPL did in a decade

>>4481139

>He thinks the Tulip bubble was a 60x.

Tulips was more like a 60,000x. Eventually a single tulip was 10 years decent salary and people were pooling money to buy tulip futures. If BTC is a the tulip bubble, BTC will easily hit 50k+.

>>4481820

>60,000x

200x at MOST. Not counting the fact that there's a legitimate historical argument to be made that the tulip bubble was a meme and only affected a small portion of the economy and people were more or less fine.

>>4481844
People were more or less fine because no one got bailed out.